The default, animal response is to lust after women, and take whatever woman you feel like.But different species have different social norms and intelligences.Thus it is a case of intelligence, conflicting with the pure animal brain of desire.

For example, in wolves, only the alpha has any sex at all, and 99% of the male wolves live in chastity. Wolves, tend to have extremely low sex-drives.This is different from lion society. In lions, the alpha viciously hordes all of the females to himself, overpowering the other lions with his brute strength, like I said. The other males, leave the tribe and seek a tribe to hijack of their own. They are high testosterone and have high sex-drive, so they often engage in homosexual behavoir.

Also, there are more subtypes besides alpha and beta, there are alpha, beta, normal, and omega. Betas are the most likely to replace the alpha if something happens, and are second in command.We can deduce that human sexual dynamics are not natural, because humans seem to have a too high sex-drive to be complacent with chastity, they are different from wolves.Further more we can analyze that beta males are frequent masterbators, and probably have more testosterone than an alpha male, since an alpha male needs to prioritize intelligence over his emotional desires. We can further investigate and observe that some gay males have double the testosterone than heterosexual human males. I have confirmed this because one time I went on a roid rage, I had extremely high testosterone and I started lusting after guys for no reason, it just popped in my head for no reason. Furthermore I would also deduce that testosterone converts to estrogen, which is why beta males have very feminine qualities.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:So your abstraction of "The Government" is more religiously and spiritually motivated, "gods" and divinities?

I would not characterize it like that, no. I look at the logic involved. And I find that people have called certain things by certain names. I don't care what they call what. I look at what must be taking place regardless of what anyone has ever said or done. And what must be taking place is that every person is limited by their situation. Thus whatever describes their actual situation, describes their governance. And that partly includes the legal-Government of social laws.

Those laws are very largely based upon what the other influences are at the time. People do not form laws against what other people do not do. And what they do or do not do is more affected by matters that are not of a legal issue. So the government of laws is, in effect, the offspring of the marriage of the other affectants (religions, environmental demands, language,...)

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Whatever people call "The Government" maybe more or less realistic and historically accurate. Realistically, "The Government" has a long history, reflecting human history. "Rome was not built in a day". People inherit these systems and status quos. Lies and indoctrination can pass along many generations, repeated from one parent to child, indefinitely. People do not break out of such cycles and loops. A slave is not merely a slave within one life time, but can be a lineage of slaves, for many generations.

In this sense, the 'power' implied by government, to impose the will of few (Governors) over or against the many (Masses), is to the favor of the few, and detriment of the many.

Governments (social order) take many forms. And that's what I emphasized in the OP. A western-democracy government is not the same as Russia, China, a tribe of Amazons out in the rain forest. Although, perhaps, governments share the generality in common, subservience to the "higher order" of things.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:You are saying "the will of the people" outside government.

I am saying the will of the people within government.

I'm saying that governments are comprised of people, with will. And those people who run government, are responsible for the country, a nation, a society, a tribe, whatever, also conceive of government in the ways I mentioned. So people basically conceive of power relationships, and then abstract those, to form understandings of "The Government". And "TG" is merely a generalization.

For example, you're talking about Western u.s. government and Democracy. There are other forms of government. Your definition of "TG" will not make sense, or be agreeable with, somebody who lives in Denmark, somebody who lives in a Brazilian rainforest, somebody who lives in Japan, somebody who lives in Russia, etc.

Government is a will of a minority and has never been the will of a majority ever even when it claims to be that. Name any kind of government in present or past history that isn't operated like a criminal organization, I'll play along if you indulge me. You have my full attention.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West wrote:Let's not {...} pretend that there is a will of the people involved.

How is the "violent gang" not the will of the people?

Otti believes that everybody with power is an alien, and that aliens are evil and that he is a unique innocent person and deserves for other people to take care of him, but he doesn't want to also have to take care of them.

Basically he is an infant.

Shut up idiot, adults are speaking here. Go back to preaching the great mystical power of Chandalas where you belong, stick with what you know.

Last edited by Otto_West on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Governments can't be "criminal" because they are literally above the law.

They impose the rules. They don't necessarily need to follow the rules they impose.

Laws exist to restrict the majority, the mass, the lesser and inferior. The definition of freedom is the abolition of all such laws, order, and imposition. For example, "liberal" ideology necessarily implies an anti-government sentiment. Liberals hate being told what to do, what they can or cannot do. Liberal-leftists apply this sentiment to sexuality, "you can't tell me what to do with my life", hence why they support homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Whatever people call "The Government" maybe more or less realistic and historically accurate. Realistically, "The Government" has a long history, reflecting human history. "Rome was not built in a day". People inherit these systems and status quos. Lies and indoctrination can pass along many generations, repeated from one parent to child, indefinitely. People do not break out of such cycles and loops. A slave is not merely a slave within one life time, but can be a lineage of slaves, for many generations.

In this sense, the 'power' implied by government, to impose the will of few (Governors) over or against the many (Masses), is to the favor of the few, and detriment of the many.

Governments (social order) take many forms. And that's what I emphasized in the OP. A western-democracy government is not the same as Russia, China, a tribe of Amazons out in the rain forest. Although, perhaps, governments share the generality in common, subservience to the "higher order" of things.

I wouldn't disagree with that either.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Governments can't be "criminal" because they are literally above the law.

There is a technical issue with that. In a constitutional government, there are no people "above the law", so yes, they can in fact be "criminal" (and quite often are).

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Governments can't be "criminal" because they are literally above the law.

They impose the rules. They don't necessarily need to follow the rules they impose.

Laws exist to restrict the majority, the mass, the lesser and inferior. The definition of freedom is the abolition of all such laws, order, and imposition. For example, "liberal" ideology necessarily implies an anti-government sentiment. Liberals hate being told what to do, what they can or cannot do. Liberal-leftists apply this sentiment to sexuality, "you can't tell me what to do with my life", hence why they support homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

So what, criminal organizations have rules also, some even have councils, your point being what exactly? Not following their own rules which they dictate to everybody else by gunpoint is quite telling of what exactly I'm talking about here. Also, the weak tend to insulate themselves behind the framework of rules, prevailing norms, or laws as a form of power because outside the protection of authority and government institutions they tend to be quite powerless. They only find empowerment through such government conventional institutions. It usually isn't any kind of meaningful self empowerment either. Your whole weak and inferior rant is laughable considering that a superior person would not have any need of rules or laws to demonstrate their own strength and power but then again the weak constantly need to latch onto something outside of themselves to give their lives meaning. I find it strange that you find strength, meaning, and solace within the confinements of government bureaucracy.

Just as there are a variety of politics and groups of people there is also a variety of criminal government syndicates. Each group of people want to inflict their views, ideologies, and perceptions onto everybody else where there is this whole competition of acquiring power to do so. Those that control a military or police structure win in enforcing their viewpoints by gunpoint on the population at large. Liberals, conservatives, fascists, or monarchs makes little difference, it's all implemented the same.

Last edited by Otto_West on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Answering his questions, I realized that what people refer to as "The Government" is an abstraction of what they believe, personally and subjectively, is political power. People imagine "TG" according to their knowledge, wisdom, ideals, and imagination. It is according to their belief-systems and faith, that people conceive the notion of power and authority. Thus all forms of TG are abstractions of power, based on that authority, and its rationalization/justification.

I couldn't argue with that.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Governments ... generally represent the "will of the people". When political leaders exploit the "will of the people" then anything can happen, as with the rise of Nazi and Hitler in Germany.

I suspect a little equivocation going on there. The will of the people is utilized in the process of governing. That will is not the governing itself, else there would be no need to govern. To govern is to limit or restrict an otherwise choatic, dispassionate, or undesired emoting of the populace (the very meaning of "Ahdam" from Genesis, the first government). Thus the presence of a government requires a distinction between the governing agent and the governed mass.

So Otto is correct in saying that the majority of the populace is always relatively powerless. Whether the governing agent is "criminal" is more an case of being "typical" and recently "very typical", rather than necessarily always. And it happens that way for a very specific reason that is extremely difficult to thwart. What inspires people to be strong is also what inspires them to be criminally dispassionate and manipulative. "Man", the man-ipulator of the people must remain rationally disciplined from the random urgings and emotings of the populace, else governing into any form of harmony cannot be achieved.

Populations do not inherently, automatically, or naturally harmonize without a governing agent. Thus governing is required so as to bring cohesiveness and harmonious behavior. Civilization, science, technology, philosophy, knowledge are all accomplishable only because there was governing going on in different forms. The only issue is whether the good outweighs the bad. At times it does. At times it doesn't.

Obviously the best governing excludes abuse of the populace but until that agent can be promoted into authority, its converse remains dominant - if you are not doing the right thing, you are doing the wrong thing.

It's an interesting paradox of human society isn't it that people in general wouldn't normally interact or work together without the forever threat of violence and punishment hanging over their heads, is it not James? I wonder, what does that say for human morality, ethics, and value judgements as a whole? What does that say about human nature itself?

I think you're already familiar with my disdain for concepts like harmony or general good.

You get an A+ for speaking on the powerlessness of the majority of the population at a government's disposal, we can at least agree upon that.

Last edited by Otto_West on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:The Constitution was created with the presupposition in mind that all governments are flawed, and subject to revision, hence all laws can be overturned.

That is "Classical Western Liberal" governance/government. "The Government" (Republic) of the u.s.

They cannot be legally overturned except by due process. The laws were not changed by that process, but by deception. Once illegally changed, being made legal afterwards does not remove the criminality involved. They remain criminals, even though no longer acting against the new laws.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Furthermore, let us examine the case of Nikola tesla. Nikola tesla was a case of a man who's intelligence dominated and neglected his animal desires. Thus, he ultimately failed to reproduce.

I must clarify, that by intelligence I don't mean consciousness. A wolf has intelligence, and isn't necessarily conscious, although wolves probably are conscious. For instance, a robot could have intelligence with no consciousness. By intelligence I mean intelligent systems. Depending on the specie, these systems can interfere and disrupt the reproductive capacity.

There is a heirarchy of alpha, beta normal and omega.

The bankers are the higher alpha, politicians, lawmakers etc are the lower alpha. Football players, actors, celebrities, police officers are Beta males. Normal is the slave population, subjugate to the betas of the alphas. We are the omega's, since noone takes philosophy seriously.

Betas, typically have the highest testosterone, amongst humans, since human alphas need to have a subjugated sex-drive in order to master human social systems. An example of alphas are bankers, politicians, lawmakers. But amongst other species, such as lions, the highest testosterone males are the alpha, usually.

James S Saint wrote:I suspect a little equivocation going on there. The will of the people is utilized in the process of governing. That will is not the governing itself, else there would be no need to govern. To govern is to limit or restrict an otherwise choatic, dispassionate, or undesired emoting of the populace (the very meaning of "Ahdam" from Genesis, the first government). Thus the presence of a government requires a distinction between the governing agent and the governed mass.

So Otto is correct in saying that the majority of the populace is always relatively powerless. Whether the governing agent is "criminal" is more an case of being "typical" and recently "very typical", rather than necessarily always. And it happens that way for a very specific reason that is extremely difficult to thwart. What inspires people to be strong is also what inspires them to be criminally dispassionate and manipulative. "Man", the man-ipulator of the people must remain rationally disciplined from the random urgings and emotings of the populace, else governing into any form of harmony cannot be achieved.

Populations do not inherently, automatically, or naturally harmonize without a governing agent. Thus governing is required so as to bring cohesiveness and harmonious behavior. Civilization, science, technology, philosophy, knowledge are all accomplishable only because there was governing going on in different forms. The only issue is whether the good outweighs the bad. At times it does. At times it doesn't.

Obviously the best governing excludes abuse of the populace but until that agent can be promoted into authority, its converse remains dominant - if you are not doing the right thing, you are doing the wrong thing.

People seem to separate "The Government" apart from "The People", like the mind-body duality, claiming they are distinct and independent. This is false because governments are comprised of people too. Thus there is no real division. If there is a division then it is, as you mention, a division of labor and specialization. Those who 'Govern' are those who impose order over the chaotic general population. Thus the Governor does seem opposed to "The People".

There is an element of Dehumanization implied here. When a Governor rises up, gains and holds power, then he is no longer part of "The People". You and Otto are both presuming and implying this. Both of you probably perceive "The Governor" as not a person, or those who govern are not people. This is more obvious with christianity as christians perceive "The Governor" as not human at all, but an invisible sky-god.

Personally, I demand realism and reality. The u.s. government is more obvious. Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, the President, all of these "governors" are people, who represent other people, within a democratic-republic system. Different systems and conceptions of government will result in different relationships and dynamics of power.

So to conclude this response, it's invalid to separate "The Government" or "The Governor" from "The People" without a reasonable case or argument. Aren't you implying that those who govern are "not people" at all? Did they lose their humanity, by becoming moral authorities, leaders, put into positions of responsibility?

How are they no longer "the people" like anybody else? Except that a Governor is presumed to be in a position of moral responsibility, on behalf of society?

More like enforce their order (civilization) onto nature (human beings sporadically and randomly controlling their own destiny)which you call chaos. Yes everybody is people but there are differences between a minority and majority where a majority of people have no influence in government whatsoever. You seem to be unable to grasp this.

In your analogy the governor is all too human which I find it strange you interpreting things for me without asking. No, my problem is that I don't want to be ruled by anybody outside of myself where I would like to shoot the governor and anybody else that would try to rule over me.

I think that you might be lost in textual translation of the word criminal here causing all of the confusion. To understand what I am saying you must understand that I am not utilizing any moral connotations here nor am I implying any kind of moral value judgements. I avoid such things when I'm talking and only utilize such things when conversing with simpletons.

No, for me a criminal is merely an individual or group of individuals that get what they want by utilizing violence, killing, and the threat of punishment all the while exploiting others. That's my take of the word. You'll also notice my intentional lack of moral value judgements in my description. I'm not saying it's good, bad, right, or wrong, I'm merely describing activity.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:People seem to separate "The Government" apart from "The People", like the mind-body duality, claiming they are distinct and independent.

Although not entirely independent, mind and body are, in fact distinct, as are the governor and the governed. A US State has a Governor. The governor is not the mass populace, but a single individual, distinct. Yet both parties are interdependent. The US Constitutional government, when it was in power, was an attempt to stitch the populace more strongly into the governorship process. And to a large degree, it succeeded. Although in the long run, due to some clever and illegal deceptions, the process was subverted and now remains only as a guise with little governing authority. The authority to govern diverted to those who control the money supply, the medical supply, and the media supply. And those are relatively very, very few people who have very little concern for the will of the masses because they know through experience that they can alter and dictate that will to conform sufficiently to their own wishes.

Surely you don't think all of this trans-gender, save the whales, superiority of women, mass migration, Blacks on Blonds, Muslims on Frauleins is all just natural nor "the will of the people"? There is nothing natural nor the result of natural mass will going on in the world today other than the objection to the forced direction. And that force has a very poignant hand controlling it.

Urwrongx1000 wrote: This is false because governments are comprised of people too. Thus there is no real division.

The Nazis and the Jews were people too, so there is no real distinction?

Urwrongx1000 wrote: If there is a division then it is, as you mention, a division of labor and specialization. Those who 'Govern' are those who impose order over the chaotic general population. Thus the Governor does seem opposed to "The People".

There is an element of Dehumanization implied here. When a Governor rises up, gains and holds power, then he is no longer part of "The People". You and Otto are both presuming and implying this.

That is all that has been intended.

Urwrongx1000 wrote: Both of you probably perceive "The Governor" as not a person, or those who govern are not people. This is more obvious with christianity as christians perceive "The Governor" as not human at all, but an invisible sky-god.

Actually, I think the intent has been that the governorship is in the hands of "only a few people" who are relatively ruthless concerning the mass of people. They literally bring about millions of deaths yearly through provoked wars for their personal profit. They lust to be God and control all of life everywhere. They are self inspired to believe it is their obligation, much like television programmers now fully accept that it is their obligation to hypnotize the masses into "proper" thinking.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Personally, I demand realism and reality. The u.s. government is more obvious. Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, the President, all of these "governors" are people, who represent other people, within a democratic-republic system. Different systems and conceptions of government will result in different relationships and dynamics of power.

Being "real" means considering the total picture, not merely a conveniently limited picture. It is true that such systems are a big part of the picture of governing. But one cannot leave out the relatively small, yet vastly significant hinge-pins swaying that system.

What is real is that you cannot see the larger portion of what is going on in a society. A society is much like an iceberg, 2/3s under see-level. Otto and I have been referring to a particularly powerful yet small element down there under the obvious part that everyone can see. And to the fact that such a small part does not represent the masses, but rather that the masses represent those few down there. The masses are somewhat insane because their leadership is somewhat insane. Such is a common reflection in every large grouping.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Aren't you implying that those who govern are "not people" at all?

No. We are implying that those who are governing are not the "will of the masses", but rather reign over the masses, largely in deceitful, thieving, and murderous ways (aka "criminal").

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Did they lose their humanity, by becoming moral authorities, leaders, put into positions of responsibility?

Very largely, yes.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:How are they no longer "the people" like anybody else? Except that a Governor is presumed to be in a position of moral responsibility, on behalf of society?

How did a murderer lose his humanity? You don't believe there has ever been mass murderers? Those who create wars are murderers. They lose their "humanity" by believing that they are above it and special. Most of them believe that it is they who are the true humans (the hue-of-Man) while the masses are but animals and even crops in need of restraining, confining, and subduing. They feed off of the masses so as to gain more for their own ambitions in the exact same way that people often feed off of livestock.

That is how they lose their "humanity" - by believing themselves to be special and above, while in fact subduing from the dark below. "Those who reign in darkness rule the world." - Paradise Lost.

Unless you view all voting platforms to be rigged or masturbatory public relations in sync with prevailing social propaganda themes to lull the majority asleep with the wool pulled over their faces in a thoroughly controlled fashion. *raises hand*

I like your iceberg analogy, indeed there are huge amounts of things going on in any given day that the majority of the public knows nothing about.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Did they lose their humanity, by becoming moral authorities, leaders, put into positions of responsibility?

Very largely, yes.

Wait a second here......... you, and Otto, are both presuming that somebody who becomes a moral authority and lives in a position of responsibility, for him/herself, or for society at large, are less human than others, or not human at all???

So you're basically defining "humanity" as slaves here. Is that what a human is, a slave?

Human interaction revolves around the master and slave dynamic. Me and James differ of course, he's a moralizing humanist, I on the other hand by comparison am a moral nihilist and skeptic.

Please don't confuse both of our perceptions as being entirely the same, while me and him might agree on some points of the conversation it is evident that we disagree on much more.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

James S Saint wrote:I have agreed with "sometimes". But to know the problem is to know the "Devil" and "Satanism". I suspect that you do not. A part of the attempt to gain total control over all things (aka "Godhood") is to be the creator of evil (be the inspiration for and funding for terrorists, for example). The "good guys" become the "bad guys" when they choose to manipulate from both sides, the "Right" and the "Left".

They seek to be unstoppable, unconquerable, untouchably dominate. And to do that requires that they be very evil while appearing to be very good. It actually requires even more than that, but that has to be proven to them. Until then, they believe that they have the higher understanding and glory over the lowly irrelevant masses.

It is actually the Adam and Eve story eternally repeating as each era attempts to gain absolute control by "partaking in the forbidden fruit" - operating both sides against each other.

Let's cut to the chase, what is your conception and abstraction of "The Government"? What does "TG" mean to you, personally and specifically?

We already have Otto's definition, which I find lackluster, shallow, and imprecise. It doesn't say much of anything. It doesn't necessarily describe reality or the way things are occurring right now.

Are you familiar with Thomas Hobbes or Niccolo Machiavelli? I am just finding it difficult with you having a hard time understanding where I'm coming from.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Let's cut to the chase, what is your conception and abstraction of "The Government"? What does "TG" mean to you, personally and specifically?

We already have Otto's definition, which I find lackluster, shallow, and imprecise. It doesn't say much of anything. It doesn't necessarily describe reality or the way things are occurring right now.

I disagree that Otto's was quite that ambiguous, but I agree that it was not definitionally precise. I don't think he was going for a definition as much as a description of the norm.

I seldom use the term "government" unless speaking of laws. I usually, and prefer, speaking of "governance", referring to all that governs the actions of people; educational norms, teachers, preachers, politicians, religions, philosophies, the weather, or whatever. The issue is one of "what is governing/limiting your behavior". And what limits, both limiting too much and too little, is a combination of many affectors.

The absolute total governance at all times is actually what the religions call "God" - your actual situation whether good, bad, or indifferent. And the aspiration of the most predominate governing people is to be the highest affectance of all life, to control the entire situation, to be God All Mighty. Yes, they are perverted and sick. But it is via their sickness that at least a very slow progress can be made. Thus homosapian survives Man, or at least until the android era wherein Man becomes nothing but machine.

When reading my posts understand that I speak of definition, description, and activity but in a rather unconventional way in that I steer clear of any kind of moral or ethical prognosis concerning value judgements. My writing can be almost described as a sort of cynical and nihilistic pessimist form of perceived narration, like a detached observer or commentator. Whether or not this is new I don't know, I would like to know if other writers have attempted to write similarly. I can certainly understand why in the past and present I confuse others with my writing style because it is unconventional something of which I pride myself in.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Whatever people call "The Government" maybe more or less realistic and historically accurate. Realistically, "The Government" has a long history, reflecting human history. "Rome was not built in a day". People inherit these systems and status quos. Lies and indoctrination can pass along many generations, repeated from one parent to child, indefinitely. People do not break out of such cycles and loops. A slave is not merely a slave within one life time, but can be a lineage of slaves, for many generations.

In this sense, the 'power' implied by government, to impose the will of few (Governors) over or against the many (Masses), is to the favor of the few, and detriment of the many.

Governments (social order) take many forms. And that's what I emphasized in the OP. A western-democracy government is not the same as Russia, China, a tribe of Amazons out in the rain forest. Although, perhaps, governments share the generality in common, subservience to the "higher order" of things.

The differences between governments is either ideological or preferred social propaganda being carried out however the methods in how they enforce their power are all the same.

All governments are the same concerning a minority of people exploiting a majority reaping most of the rewards of government for themselves.

Also, I don't differentiate between democracy and fascism, what's the difference between a president, king, or dictator really? If you remove the illusion of voting from democracy what exactly is left?

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Let's cut to the chase, what is your conception and abstraction of "The Government"? What does "TG" mean to you, personally and specifically?

We already have Otto's definition, which I find lackluster, shallow, and imprecise. It doesn't say much of anything. It doesn't necessarily describe reality or the way things are occurring right now.

I disagree that Otto's was quite that ambiguous, but I agree that it was not definitionally precise. I don't think he was going for a definition as much as a description of the norm.

I seldom use the term "government" unless speaking of laws. I usually, and prefer, speaking of "governance", referring to all that governs the actions of people; educational norms, teachers, preachers, politicians, religions, philosophies, the weather, or whatever. The issue is one of "what is governing/limiting your behavior". And what limits, both limiting too much and too little, is a combination of many affectors.

The absolute total governance at all times is actually what the religions call "God" - your actual situation whether good, bad, or indifferent. And the aspiration of the most predominate governing people is to be the highest affectance of all life, to control the entire situation, to be God All Mighty. Yes, they are perverted and sick. But it is via their sickness that at least a very slow progress can be made. Thus homosapian survives Man, or at least until the android era wherein Man becomes nothing but machine.

When reading my posts understand that I speak of definition, description, and activity but in a rather unconventional way in that I steer clear of any kind of moral or ethical prognosis concerning value judgements. My writing can be almost described as a sort of cynical and nihilistic pessimist form of perceived narration, like a detached observer or commentator. Whether or not this is new I don't know, I would like to know if other writers have attempted to write similarly. I can certainly understand why in the past and present I confuse others with my writing style because it is unconventional something of which I pride myself in.

I find myself writing very similar to you actually. Personally the only emotions I feel on a daily basis are fear, anger, and sadness, and so categorically I am very statistically an anomaly. Normally I feel a complete detachment and awkwardness when I'm around other human beings and this detachment is reflected in my posting habits. But while I am around them I try to act normal and put on a happy face so that they don't sense my detachment. A part of me worries if my pheromones give it away.

I find myself writing very similar to you actually. Personally the only emotions I feel on a daily basis are fear, anger, and sadness, and so categorically I am very statistically an anomaly. Normally I feel a complete detachment and awkwardness when I'm around other human beings and this detachment is reflected in my posting habits. But while I am around them I try to act normal and put on a happy face so that they don't sense my detachment. A part of me worries if my pheromones give it away.

The detached individual to a large extent has to fake emotions, interest, and pleasantries around other people concerning a social setting in order to not come off as being socially awkward or rude. It has taken me almost twenty five years to master this skill of social pretense.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West wrote:The differences between governments is either ideological or preferred social propaganda being carried out however the methods in how they enforce their power are all the same.

All governments are the same concerning a minority of people exploiting a majority reaping most of the rewards of government for themselves.

Also, I don't differentiate between democracy and fascism, what's the difference between a president, king, or dictator really? If you remove the illusion of voting from democracy what exactly is left?

Otto_West wrote:The differences between governments is either ideological or preferred social propaganda being carried out however the methods in how they enforce their power are all the same.

All governments are the same concerning a minority of people exploiting a majority reaping most of the rewards of government for themselves.

Also, I don't differentiate between democracy and fascism, what's the difference between a president, king, or dictator really? If you remove the illusion of voting from democracy what exactly is left?

This is you Otto:

Ah yes, but for every innovation you can mention I can show over a period of history individual autonomy lost or stolen. And once again, most of the benefits of government or even technological innovation goes to a minority of people anyways as they are the only ones that can afford it.

But hey, at least in this era of bondage where individual autonomy or sovereignty is next to none I can at least take a shower! Progressive!

What it comes down to is innovative dependency masquerading as progress, that's the sales pitch.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.